I found this letter to president Bush from a group of 118 drug company CEO's called the Biotechnology Industry Organization dated May 21, 2002

"We, the undersigned biotechnology company CEOs, are writing to ask that you nominate, as soon as possible, an individual to become the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We commend your appointment of Lester M. Crawford Jr., D.V.M., Ph.D., to the position of deputy commissioner. The time has come to take the next step and name an FDA commissioner. We cannot stress enough the importance of filling this position. [snip]
A new commissioner must reverse the trend of increased review times, demonstrate to Congress the need for additional appropriations, lead on bioterrorism issues, and insist on quick action to extend the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.
The ideal candidate would possess the qualifications listed above, and perhaps current or past industry experiences as well. "

OK, let's just call these BushCo's marching orders for the sake of argument. After all, why else would the heads of 118 different drug companies get together to describe the ideal candidate to head up the federal agency that oversees their products? (my favorite is the "current industry experience" - wink, wink) The points in the above letter bear some examination unless you're a neocon, so here we go;

1. We need a new commissioner. It's an important agency.

2. Lester Crawford (the veterinarian) is just the guy.

3. Review times for new drugs are increasing.

4. FDA needs a bigger budget.

5. Terra terra terra.

6. Save the PDUFA.

I'm inclined to agree with #1. It's a job somebody qualified should fill, otherwise you might end up with a drug like Vioxx getting out there ...
But #2, not so much. After his time as "acting" director, Crawford was passed over for the job while Mark McClellan ran the agency from November 2002 until March 2004. McClellan, now where have I heard that name before... Yup, he's Scotty's brother!!  And according to Newsweek, he has politics in his blood. It also appears he can't hold a job. Since his temping as head of the FDA, Marky has temped as Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Now he temps at the Brookings institute and (drumroll, please) The American Enterprise Institute. Another heckuva fall upward, eh?

Sounding AT ALL familiar yet? Because it continues.
We'll come back to the reign of Lester Crawford shortly.
But let's take a look at that assertion about the "trend of increased review times" shall we?

This is from an excellent report from a group called the George Washington University Medical Center  Rapid Public Health Policy Response Project (Read the whole report, if you want to really understand what's gone wrong with the FDA as an institution.):

"Evidence suggests that FDA has met its primary PDUFA goal of speeding the review of new products, primarily by increasing the size of the review staff. Median review time for standard new drugs was 27 months in 1993, 14 months in 2001 and 10.5 months in 2004.
Similarly, the median review time for priority drugs—those for serious and life-threatening diseases that lack satisfactory treatments—was 21 months in 1993 and six months in 2004."

OK, so that line asserting increasing review times is just a big fat lie.  Under Clinton, drug review times were almost cut in half. Priority drugs cut the review time by more than two thirds. That wasn't good enough, apparently. Pfizer execs were seen starving in the streets all last year.  {sigh}
On the bright side, the drug companies felt they had to lie to Bush at least a little bit. Worth noting, too, is that the report says the main goal of PDUFA was speeding up approval of new drugs so the profits could flow faster. Money well spent, I'm sure. Just like the campaign donations.
So if the PDUFA funds 42.5% of the human drug program at the FDA, and over half of the drug review budget, why is it so critical to increase the Congressionally appropriated FDA budget, as the BIO group insists??
From GWU's Rapid Response Project:

"In order to collect and spend user fees, PDUFA requires the FDA to dedicate a certain level of appropriated federal dollars to the drug review process. Most of that pays for salaries, since more than 80 percent of the FDA’s total budget supports the agency’s workforce. To meet its commitment to timely drug reviews, the FDA has shifted staff away from other activities, especially research, training and field inspections, and kept staff positions, including those of medical officers and statisticians, vacant when they become open. The result has been a rather dramatic redistribution of personnel within the agency."

Oh, I see. Still not fast enough. I mean, if you can't get Botox approved the same day you think it up, then the terrorists win. Of course, shifting personnel away from their normal duties like FOOD INSPECTIONS just might have a consequence down the road somewhere, but hey, have you seen the stock price??

From the same report: 
    "Four former FDA Commissioners, [who] spoke at a February 2007 policy workshop at The George Washington University. Frank Young, MD, PhD, commissioner from 1984 to 1989, said early proposals for user fee legislation reflected "a moment of desperation. No one really wanted to go this route."  At the workshop, Young asked his colleagues, "Given a choice of having PDUFA or an appropriation of equal amount, which would you take?" The other commissioners spoke with a single voice. "Appropriations," said David A. Kessler, MD, JD, whose tenure from 1990 to 1997 coincided with the enactment of the first PDUFA law. "No question."
   Institute of Medicine report, which stated, "Congressional appropriations from general tax revenue are a mechanism by which the public can directly, fairly and effectively invest in the FDA’s postmarket drug safety activities."
   Consumer groups, which issued statements as part of a public meeting held Feb. 16, 2007 to gather stakeholder views on PDUFA IV recommendations. The Consumers Union, the National Research Center for Women and Families and the Center for Medical Consumers all expressed a preference for full FDA funding through federal appropriations.
   Twenty-two experts in drug safety and regulatory issues, who signed an open letter to Congress calling for full FDA funding through appropriations and a reauthorization of PDUFA only long enough to reform the current system. Signatories included three former editors-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, four members of the IOM drug safety committee, and six former senior HHS and FDA officials. "

OK, so the drug company CEO's just love the PDUFA, all the former FDA heads, the Institute of Medicine, all the consumer groups (aka "the people") and the career professionals hate it.
Hmmm. Sounding a little more familiar?
We've got a situation where a federal agency is in turmoil and has to deal with emerging crises with diminished personnel, poor leadership, and agency focus on business interests, not the public good.
Does that remind anyone else of FEMA?

Well, another common thread with the Bush Crime Family is, well, criminal behavior, so how about that Les Crawford guy the CEO's like so much?

From Vitabeat:

"Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner, Dr. Lester Crawford, has resigned, after repeated claims that he allowed his agency to "play politics" with drug approvals, and oversaw some very high profile drug safety recalls. The White House quickly named Andrew von Eschenbach, the director of the National Cancer Institute, as acting FDA commissioner."

Oh, well, playing politics with the public health, and even though Vioxx et al slipped through, where's the crime in that?
From Wikipedia:

"On October 17, 2006, [Crawford] pleaded guilty "to conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating." "

Well, whattaya know.
Another Bush mole put in to serve the patrons and he can't keep his fuckin' mitts out of the till.
Jesus jumped up Christ. And this guy was given two shots at running the FDA. Does Bush know anyone who isn't a crook?
I'm sure after that embarassment the new guy will reflect lessons learned, right?

From Public Citizen:

"If confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach will become yet another Bush appointee whose main reason for being selected is that he is a family friend, someone who has been warmly embraced by the regulated industries – especially the pharmaceutical industry – and someone who has been and will continue to be loyal to the White House agenda. Von Eschenbach continues to exhibit extraordinarily bad judgment, a lack of being in touch with reality and insensitivity to the hopes and fears of other cancer patients and their friends and families, as evidenced by his oft-stated "plan" to eliminate the suffering and death from cancer by 2015. Eradicating cancer within 10 years is not realisitic, and by making this statement, von Eschenbach is cruelly raising people’s hopes.  
He is a very poor choice to head this critical agency, and his nomination must be defeated. Otherwise, the FDA will be further weakened and the public health further damaged by someone who is so unqualified."

Well, turns out Andy is a crony. What a shock. And according to this piece, delusional.
Now, I haven't turned over any rocks regarding von Eschenbach, but it's likely because I haven't tried. Let's just review here and see if we can't find a pattern.

1. Congress enacts PDUFA. Drug companies are financing safety reviews of their products, and review times go down dramatically. "Nobody could have imagined" that that might mean a reduction in the quality of these reviews, and that public health, the central function of this agency, would be seriously compromised.

2. Enter Bush, owing big favors to Big Pharma.

3. Big pharma whines about nonexistent bottleneck. Vioxx recall hasn't happened yet, so in spite of the reduction in review times over the preceding 8 years, they want their place at the neocon trough, and push for faster testing.

4. Bush, in an effort to do his masters' bidding, puts corrupt toad in the driver's seat, replaces him with a crony toad, then reinstates toad #1 when toad #2 gets an even bigger federal dept to screw up.

5. Both toads oversee escalating shift of manpower and resources from oversight of food safety to drug approval, and show zero committment to the agency by treating it as an ATM (in Crawford's case) and a resume item (McClellan).

6. Vioxx and other recalls, and the idiotic Plan B pill morality play, both direct results of Republican and Bush policies, use up remaining resources of slavedriven FDA, which has now become Rubber Stamp Drug Approval Central.

7. Weird stuff starts getting into the US human food supply, foodstuffs from spinach to peanut butter are "tainted" more often than I can ever remember, and the first response of the FDA is "Don't worry".

Just Like FEMA
Just Like the Department of Justice
Just like the GSA, and the Forest Service, and NASA, and the FCC, and the Department of Education, and the National Weather service...
Just like Iraq.
Nothing is untouchable. Nothing is nonpolitical. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe.
Every organ of government has been simultaneously treated as a trough for the connected and a tool of the vaunted permanent Republican Majority. The damage to each of them won't even be full known until they each break down, one by one.
As did FEMA, as did the DoJ, so did the FDA.
This is NOT "incompetence". It is negligence.
It is the direct result of misusing another government agency charged with protecting the public good for narrow political ends.
And "nobody could have known" (which I've heard here) is bullshit, too. If the FDA were headed and run as an organization dedicated to public health, and not a political payback machine, the chances are far higher that:
a) somebody might have been assigned to check up on China's food additives more often than their DVD piracy, and
b) somebody might have noticed the sick animals sooner, and
c) A full statement and action plan would have happened much sooner.

This is Republican governance.
This is what they mean when they promise to cut your taxes.
Can we please, please, PLEASE impeach this cancer?
Now it is on the verge of literally killing us in our homes.